Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
The following is the text of a presentation given on May 4, 2004 at the Fourth World Fisheries Congress in Vancouver, B.C. One of two commercial fishermen to serve on the Pew Oceans Commission, Parravano’s comments are timely given the introduction of two major bills in the Congress this past month based on many of the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP) and the Pew Oceans Commission. Two earlier articles prepared by Parravano on the Pew Commission and USCOP appeared in the June 2003 and May 2004 issues of The Fishermen’s News.
I want to thank the sponsors of the fourth World Fisheries Congress and the Sustainable Fisheries Foundation for their kind invitation to address you today. It is a pleasure to be here with Dr. Andy Rosenberg to discuss the work and recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission and the United States Commission on Ocean Policy. As you know, the two commissions – one private, one created by the U.S. Congress – were established to provide a comprehensive review of U.S. ocean policy – the first since the Stratton Commission of the late 1960’s – and develop a set of recommendations for the nation on the management, conservation and uses of the world’s most extensive exclusive ocean zone.
I was one of two commercial fishermen named to sit on the Pew Oceans Commission in 2000. It was an undertaking of a lifetime. At the time I had been president of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations for some 10 years and was heading up its research and conservation non-profit, the Institute for Fisheries Resources and had during the past few years been involved in the development of an international organization – the World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers – aimed at providing representation for the small fishing family operations and artisanal fisheries, so I was not a stranger to many of the issues surrounding our fisheries, but still had no idea of the magnitude or complexity of the problems confronting our oceans today my work on the Pew Commission.
When I first entered into the occupation of commercial fishing over twenty years ago, words like ecosystems, socio-economics and coastal zones were not common . Today, sadly, terms such as depleted fish stocks, collapsing fisheries, coastal pollution, coastal sprawl, invasive species, climate change, not to mention an increasing human population, are commonplace. And, tragically, confronting these issues has not been a top priority for either government or the public. It is my hope, the hope of my fellow commissioners and I hope everyone that we can elevate the priority of resolving these pressing problems among the public and our policy makers. For our planet and ourselves, these are issues of far greater importance than flag burning, the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, or permanent tax cuts for the wealthy. Indeed, if we do not address them, I suspect God will ask that his or her name be removed from the pledge of a nation that does not have the good sense to care for what the almighty has bestowed upon it.
As a fisherman and as a scientist, I know we can no longer allow for these issues to continue to fester or erode the quality of our coastal communities, our nations, or our planet without addressing them. It is our responsibility as citizens, scientists and fishermen, to ensure that our coastal zones and marine environment are managed by sound policies grounded in credible, not censored science.
Our coastal communities and ocean are besieged by an onslaught of human activities threatening our nation’s economy, environment and cultural heritage. No matter which profession we are in, the Oceans and its coastal zones are giving us indications of wear and tear and we all need to do some homework.
Our use of the oceans has changed greatly over the course of human civilization. Initially our oceans were there for fishing and the gathering of food. Then there was transportation and with it trade, exploration and warfare. With industrialization, the seaside became a place to escape from the teeming cities and the summer heat, a place to recreate. With industrialization, too, man began using it as dump for urban sewage and the waste from factories. Although we know better, our oceans continue to be a receptacle for our waste, from improperly treated sewage, the runoff from our streets and farms, to the highly toxic chemicals used by industry and agriculture. The mismanagement of our fisheries, I would argue, too, is a form of waste. Disposing of our waste and everything that was unwanted was cheap and we didn’t much have to think about it –out of sight, out of mind.
Nor is the situation about to get better unless our oceans become a priority. Consider the emerging demands on the ocean for energy production – both renewable and non-renewable sources. Consider the interest in the minerals of the seabed for manufacturing or the life within the ocean as sources for new medicines. Consider the proposals for aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone and those of other coastal nations. Finally, just consider the human population growth in the coastal zone and the implications that has for runoff and habitat loss.
The work of the Pew Commission and the U.S. Oceans Commission is timely, if not overdue. Many of our coastal communities are now suffering. Diminished fish stocks, health warnings on others have taken a toll on the fishing industry and fish production as beach closures have on tourism.
It was out of a sense of frustration that ocean issues were not being addressed and the U.S. Congress was not acting that the Pew Oceans Commission was formed in July 2000 to chart a new course for U.S. ocean policy. Our mission was to identify policies and practices necessary to restore and protect living marine resources in U.S. oceans and coastal habitats on which they depend. We sought to understand the state of our oceans and the effectiveness of the nation’s ocean policy.
The Commission was charged with raising public awareness of the principal threats to the importance of ocean and coastal resources to the U.S. economy. It is a nonpartisan, independent group of American leaders from the worlds of science, fishing, conservation, government, education, business and philanthropy. It secured the help of leading scientists to determine priority issues. Our approach encompassed extensive research and testimony from Americans whose lives are intertwined with the Ocean. The Commission organized into four committees to review the core issues of governance, fishing, pollution, and coastal development. We also investigated marine aquaculture, invasive species, ocean zoning, climate change and education.
For more than two and a half years, the Commission conducted a national dialogue on ocean issues. We convened a series of 15 regional meetings, public hearings and workshops to listen to those who live and work along the coasts. From Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, we spoke with hundreds of citizens, fishermen, scientists, government officials, tourist operators and business leaders. Commissioners held a series of 12 focus groups with fishermen in a variety of ports. Believing that experience is the best teacher, Commissioners went lobster fishing in Maine, toured a pineapple plantation in Hawaii to learn about ways to control polluted runoff and visited coastal habitat restoration projects in New York and South Carolina. We went to Des Moines, Iowa and talked with farmers about how farming activities are impacting the marine resources in the Gulf of Mexico.
By speaking with those that live and work along the coasts and around the country and by collecting the best scientific information available, the Commission learned a great deal about the problems facing our oceans and the consequences to coastal communities and the nation if we fail to address them. We also learned about the actions needed to overcome the crisis facing our oceans. We learned from our fellow Americans that the status quo is unacceptable.
Let us take a look at what we found as the evidence for this fragmented and inadequate governance system as we toured around this country. These findings were the foundation for the recommendations for a national ocean policy. This national ocean policy is centered on four core issues—governance of the oceans, fishing activities, coastal development (or sprawl) and coastal pollution. It is important that as I describe what we learned that you keep in mind that all of these issues are interwoven. I strongly believe that the most significant aspect of the Pew Oceans Commission report is that it connects all of these emerging issues. This is in contrast to what we have now which is a multitude of policies, agencies and regulations that are either weak or are inadequate to address, among other things, land affects on the quality of the Oceans and its ecosystems.
Marine life and vital coastal habitats are straining under the increasing pressure of our use. What we once considered inexhaustible and resilient is, in fact, finite and fragile. The crisis confronting our oceans has many dimensions:
Throughout history, the coast—the place where land and rivers meet the sea—has been an area of astounding biological abundance. For those people who live far inland reap the benefits of productive oceans when they dine on saltwater fish or visit the ocean shores. Today, more than half the population of the United States lives in coastal counties. Population density along the coasts is about five times the national average. Associated with these increasing pressures are the need for housing, water, food, recreation, waste disposal, roads and cars. Habitat destruction and the decline of coastal water quality are the primary threats to species with which we share the coastal environment. We are fundamentally changing the natural ecosystems that attract us to the coasts. In some areas, we have converted expansive wetlands into cities. In other areas, we have converted sand dunes into irrigated golf courses and subdivisions.
Wetlands are particularly valuable and vulnerable. They support fish and wildlife populations of economic, ecological and social importance. It is estimated over 80 percent of our commercial fish stocks, for example, are wetland dependent at some point in their life. Moreover, wetlands provide ecological services by slowing down and absorbing storm water, filtering pollutants from urban and agricultural runoff, and buffering coastal areas from storms and erosion. Probably the most harmful impact of development on marine and freshwater ecosystems is the degradation that results from polluted runoff.
Surfaces that are impervious to water—such as paved roads, parking lots, and rooftops—greatly increase the problem of runoff. The problem is not just one of population; our patterns of land use amplify the effects of population growth on coastal ecosystems. The population along the coast will continue to increase. It is up to us to mange that development in ways that protect coastal ecosystems. If not, we will find ourselves impoverished, along with our coasts. Coastal development and associated sprawl destroy and endanger coastal wetlands and estuaries that serve as nurseries for many valuable fishery species. Paved surfaces have created expressways for oil, grease, and toxic pollutants into coastal waters.
Nutrient runoff creates harmful algal blooms and leads to the degradation or loss of sea grass and kelp beds that are important spawning and nursery grounds for fish. The consequences of this polluted runoff are most acute along the coasts, where more than 13,000 beaches in the United Stateswere closed or under pollution advisories in 2001. Two-thirds of our estuaries are either moderately or severely degraded from eutrophication. These are signs of a silent crisis in our oceans. It is a crisis we must address through changes in both policy and commitment.
Today, nonpoint sources present the greatest pollution threat to our oceans and coasts. Nonpoint pollutants include excess fertilizers and pesticides used in farming, oil and grease from paved surfaces, bacteria and nutrients from livestock manure. Rather than confronting individual cases, the situation requires that we apply new thinking about the connection between the land and the sea, and the role watersheds play in providing habitat and reducing pollution. That new thinking cannot come too soon. Earlier this year the United Nations Environmental Program released it report finding that “dead zones” created by polluted runoff, particularly nutrient rich fertilizers, will be a larger threat to world fish stocks than overfishing.
Fishing is one of mankind’s earliest endeavors and is America’s first industry. The fishing heritage has enriched the social, cultural, and economic life of our nation. Around the coasts, fishing is the backbone of the economy and culture for many communities. Today, productive ecosystems, and the fishing industries and communities that depend upon those ecosystems, are sadly in a dangerous state of decline.
Surveying the fisheries in the United States, we found that there is an inconsistency with the way fisheries are managed. This inconsistency has resulted in opposite consequences for the fishermen. In fisheries that showed a decline, the problems of over fishing, wasteful by catch, and the destruction of habitat was common. These problems prevented the recovery efforts of the fish species. They also contributed to fishing activities that were unsustainable. In September 2002 West Coast fishermen faced a hardship when severe restrictions were placed on rockfish. On the East Coast, there are severe restrictions on codfish. Not every fishery has had these severe restrictions. Examples of successfully managed fisheries were the Pacific salmon - where the habitat was protected, Pacific halibut, the San Francisco Bay herring, the Atlantic striped bass, and the New England lobster.
Another issue affecting the fisheries is the impact of imports on domestic markets. Here on the West coast and in the Gulf Coast, we have seen economic disaster resulting from the flood of cheap farmed salmon and shrimp imports The result of this harms not just our coastal communities, but the economic basis for conserving our fish stocks and protecting habitats. It’s pretty damned hard for fishermen to argue for protection of a watershed from a new dam, or the protection of a vital wetland from development, or the protection of coastal waters from offshore oil rigs, if the value of the fishery has been wiped out due to a flood of cheap imports.
We also found that while aquaculture has promise for increasing our supply of fish, it also poses significant problems if not properly planned for. In addition to issues of pollution, spread of disease to the wild, the escape of farmed fish and the potential for competition, predation or interbreeding with wild stocks, and the displacement in the coastal zone of traditional fisheries, as has occurred in Chile and with shrimp farms in Asia and Central America, some types of aquaculture can actually result in a net loss of protein.
The land is connected to the ocean and the oceans are complex systems of interrelated parts. Yet, we have approached them as though they are a collection of disconnected components, problems and opportunities. Examples of these are the dams in the Columbia River, which have devastated the salmon population in the Pacific; fertilizer running off the fields has created a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico one thousand miles away. To govern the oceans for the long-term public good, we need to manage with the entire ecosystem in mind, embracing the whole as well as the parts. Governance is a reflection of the knowledge and values of the society that creates it. Our ocean governance needs updating to reflect substantial changes in our knowledge of the oceans and our values toward them. An example of this is the plight of the salmon in the Northwest. It illustrates the complex problems facing our oceans and coasts when you have a fish species that utilizes habitat both on land and in the ocean. Maintaining the health of marine ecosystems is not only in our national interest but also in our global interest. Without productive and resilient marine ecosystems, coastal economies and entire industries would be decimated and our quality of life would be forever harmed.
The recommendations that came out of the Pew Ocean Commission and the U.S. Ocean Commission are remarkably similar for too very different bodies. I think this is not simply because the two groups were in close communication through the past three years, but because in the series of meetings and hearings across the nation held by the two commissions we heard many of the same problems. To begin addressing the findings of the Pew Commission, we recommended the passage of an Oceans organic act for the U.S. to better coordinate its actions relating to oceans and better protect those water bodies. We felt the establishment of ecosystem councils to better coordinate government activities at the regional level affecting oceans made a great deal of sense. For fisheries, the Pew Commission recommended reforms in the regional council process, including the separation of science from allocation. These are many of the same conclusions the U.S. Commission came to in their recently released draft now out for review by the governors and the public. Indeed, some members of Congress may want to pick it up off the coffee table and actually read it. It could be enlightening.
Now, I would like to turn attention to fisheries and conservation within the fishing community. For my organization, reconciling fisheries with conservation was never difficult. In California we learned a long time ago, based on experience with both sardines and salmon, that conservation of fish stocks was synonymous with the maintenance of our fisheries. If there are no fish, there is no fishing. It’s as simple as that. This isn’t rocket science, but then again, there are some in our industry, like many in our government, who don’t have both oars in the water.
Commercial fishing can be broken down to three fundamental elements. First there must be fish (at a harvestable level). Second, there must be access to the fish. Third there must be a market or use for the fish. The most important of these is harvestable levels of fish. So I don’t see a disconnect between fisheries and conservation or fishing and environmental protection – they go together.
The Pew Commission report and some of the U.S.-Ocean Commission recommendations are aimed at improving the management of U.S. fisheries to make them sustainable. Some additional thoughts I have to add to the commissions’ recommendations as well as some strategies I’d like to share with you regarding the global oceans agenda. These were in an address I gave on the one-year anniversary of the World Summit on Sustainable Development.
Both the Pew and U.S. Oceans Commission make recommendations for improving U.S. fishery management, including the “separation of science from allocation.” The problem I have, and that goes for some of the recommendations being made by the environmental community, is that I don’t think simply changing structure or process is enough.
First, as to separating the science from allocation, that is removing pressure on the regional councils to allow more fishing than the science says would be sustainable, it is obvious we need to have strict adherence to what the science tells us regarding catch levels. However, I caution against simply “locking up the scientists” to decide what can be caught. We need to have the discussions between fishermen and scientists to share their information. This give and take between these experts I believe is essential to expanding our knowledge of fish stocks and their habitats, and avoiding mistakes.
Second, I’m not so sure that revising memberships on the regional councils is as important as changing the manner now in how public council members are selected. These regional councils are charged with developing the recommendations for the conservation and management of our fish stocks, but the selection of their members is both casual and highly politicized. First off, at the state level the selections are fairly informal - usually involving discussions with the stakeholder interests, not any kind of extensive search for the best possible candidates. Although the law requires individuals to be knowledgeable, we have seen far too many governors’ nominees to be anything but that. At the Department of Commerce the situation is just as bad. Indeed, Commerce, which is to receive a minimum of three nominees for each council seat from a governor, has flaunted the law, particularly regarding balance and has made no effort to interview candidates to find the best among them. I’m sorry, but a stack of letters from a pressure group or Congressional members and an ability to pass a national security check does not necessarily make the best appointment. What I’m saying here is that all of us should be insisting that the governors and Commerce begin taking this task of council appointments far more seriously, making them more about qualifications and less about political connections.
Next, I’d like to recommend we institute a program of professionalization within our fishing fleet. Consider for a moment five of Christ disciples and what would happen to them today if they sought to return to their given occupations. Luke, the physician, today would be required to go though about eight years of training followed by an internship. Simon Peter, Matthew, Mark and John, however, the four fishermen disciples could simply go out and buy a fishing license and any permit required for that fishery and go fishing. No education requirements, no training, no internships nor apprenticeships.
Given the complexities of fishing today and the care that must be taken to carefully and selectively harvest fish, as well as care for it once landed to assure the highest quality, I don’t think we can leave this to chance. We insist our doctors, attorneys, accountants, and others in the professions and skilled trades have and maintain certain levels of proficiency, should we insist upon it as well among those entrusted with the catching and landing of our public resources?
Let me now turn to an issue that is more international than national but affects our domestic fisheries as well, in terms of the harvest of highly migratory stocks and the impact of illegally caught fish finding their way onto our markets. There is no doubt that for a number of major fish stocks unlawful fishing activity poses a major threat and the elimination of illegal fishing was identified in the 2002 Johannesburg conference on sustainable development as one of its goals. Poaching not only threatens fish stocks, it hurts law abiding fishing men and women. But eliminating illegal fishing requires more than just lip service, and for effective enforcement of fishing laws to occur three things must take place. First, developed nations, where much of the illegally caught fish is sold have to enact strict measures to prevent the entry and sale of illegally harvested fish. Second, there must be cooperation among ocean nations in enforcing international treaties and agreements for the conservation of fish stocks. Most of the poaching does not occur off the coasts of developed nations, but rather on the high seas or offshore of developing nations who do not have the financial resources to effectively enforce illegal fishing. Third, to effectively combat illegal fishing, fishery laws must be just and have the support of the fishing community.
At Johannesburg the issue of controlling fishing effort, that is, the number of vessels in each fishing fleet, was listed as another of its goals for the decade. There was, for example, a clear call for an end to subsidies for new vessel construction. Here on the U.S. Pacific coast we saw what happened when the fleet harvesting capacity outstripped the stocks’ ability to support that level of effort. There are three elements in managing fishing capacity. First, is to determine what level of fishing effort the stock can sustain and then determine the number of participants and vessels that the fishery can economically sustain. Second, is to place a limit on the number of individuals or vessels that can participate in a fishery. Third, is working toward the ideal participant level. Factors such as types of fishing gear and vessel sizes have to be considered when calculating ideal participant level in a fishery.
The two cautions I want to add here is that in reducing fleet size, the goal ought not to be simply to leave in place a few big and highly profitable operators, but to maintain fishing communities sized to the long term sustainable levels of the stocks. A stronger case can be made for conserving stocks and their habitats when whole communities are involved, not simply a few rich operators.
The second caution I want to add, and where I differ with the U.S. Oceans Commission is on the issue of assistance the U.S. provides its fleet. Rather than scrap the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) as has beenrecommended, I would urge it be redirected. CCF has been used for years as a tax-deductible fund where fishermen could place their money for new vessel construction or reconstruction. Rather than use those funds for increasing fishing effort, fishermen should be allowed to use them for making their vessels safer, more fuel efficient or capable of better handling catch (such as better
A great deal of faith has been put in the establishment of a network of marine reserves, no fishing zones, as a means of saving our fish stocks, as an alternative to “failed fishery management.” Here again, I want to offer a word of caution. Pollution or over fishing of migratory stocks knows no boundaries. Marine reserves are not going to stop ocean pollution. Nor are they of much value when there are oceanic regime changes. Simply declaring areas off limits to fishing without controlling other human impacts may do little to protect biodiversity or ecosystems. Marine reserves are an easy answer for many people. While some marine reserves may be justified, they are of limited value because they give the public a false sense of security regarding ocean health, unless they are coupled with strong measures to prevent pollution and ensure responsible fishing practices. We should not lose sight of the much more important task of protecting all ocean waters, not just some percentage where fishing is banned.
Perhaps the best thing that all of us here can do is work toward a goal of collaboration between fishermen and scientists. We cannot, for example, implement ecosystem management, nor can we site and monitor marine reserves without research and regular and frequent monitoring of stocks and our ocean waters. Moreover, I believe, the best and most cost efficient way of carrying out research is utilizing the knowledge and expertise of fishing men and women whenever possible. The knowledge of fishermen is too often underutilized.
Both the Pew and U.S. commissions recommend substantial increases in the funding for ocean research and programs. The U.S. Oceans Commission has even recommended the establishment of a trust fund to provide the monies necessary to carry out this purpose.
Last August in PCFFA’s monthly column in the The Fishermen’s News the establishment of a fishery trust fund was proposed. The need for this trust fund was recognized in light of the record U.S. budget deficit and, realistically, there is little chance of getting much money out of the Congress next year for fish or oceans absent a stand-alone funding source – one similar in concept to the Highway Trust Fund or the Wallop-Breaux Sportfishing Restoration Fund. The other authors and I proposed such a fund to be used for new or expanded fishery research, monitoring and management programs, and to be based on a nominal ad valorem fee on all seafood sold in the U.S. The Marine Fish Conservation Network is taking up the issue and I am hopeful my fellow Pew Commissioners and members of the U.S. Oceans Commission will back up this proposal as well.
In addition to the Fishery Trust fund concept, I suggest we begin looking at a larger ocean trust fund as well to fund such things as oceanic research and instrumentation monitoring, the funding of our national marine sanctuaries, along with ocean pollution and prevention and abatement, even Coast Guard search and rescue functions. Rather than rely on offshore oil and gas revenues, however, as the U.S. Commission has suggested, I recommend we look at other sources, such as utilizing a fraction of the exemption marine users get from the Highway Trust Fund on their fuel, instead of one that could act as an incentive for new offshore oil drilling or other potentially destructive practices.
So how can we move forward confronting the conservation issues facing our fisheries and our oceans? The fundamental conclusion is that we must realign an ocean policy that reflects the principles of ecosystem health and sustainability. We must redefine our relationship with the oceans to reflect an understanding of the land-sea connection. New laws and policies, however substantial, are not enough. A more fundamental change is needed. A change in values—not only what we value, but how we value—is essential to protecting our oceans and coasts. Our society needs an ethic of stewardship and responsibility toward the ocean. The oceans are a vast public domain—our largest-- that is vitally important to our economic and environmental security as a nation. The public has entrusted the government with the stewardship of the oceans and the government should exercise environmental and economic control over them with a broad sense of responsibility toward all citizens and their long-term interest. Likewise, public and private users of ocean resources should be responsible in their use and should be held accountable for their actions. Our country must articulate a clear, strong, commitment to our oceans invoking the principle of managing a public trust for the common good.
This is our challenge. To meet this challenge, the world must substantially increase its investment in understanding and managing the oceans and educating the public about the oceans. This investment will be paid back many fold in the form of abundant living ocean resources. This vision will be returned to us with abundant marine life, thriving fishing communities, clean beaches and coastal waters, and healthful seafood. Without this investment, we risk further decline in ocean ecosystem health and serious consequences for our dependence on the Oceans. The choice is ours to make.
Pietro Parravano is a commercial fisherman from Half Moon Bay, California. He is President of the Institute for Fisheries Resources (IFR) and an elected member of the San Mateo County Harbor Commission. He served 12 years as President of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and was a member of the Pew Oceans Commission for three years.